It's not the miles, but the elevation

[ColinJ]

It's also interesting how perspective makes a huge difference. I'm pretty sure someone said above that they head to the Ribble Valley when they want 'hilly', whereas I actively consider the Ribble Valley the only area to head to from here to create a 'flat' route.

I was thinking that too, though I think of it more as 'undulating'!

I had intended to ride out there to do Longridge Fell/Chipping/Whitewell/Cow Ark today for my October metric century but the weather put me off. Monday is looking better for it.

It is possible to do some very hilly rides out there but there are more flattish possibilities than round here. I have the busy flattish A646/A6033 roads to ride here, but apart from those everything else is either hilly or very hilly.

It is very rare for my rides in this area to be less than 10 metres of climbing per km. Typically, it would be more like a hilly 20 metres per km and sometimes a very hilly 25+ metres per km. 2,000 metres in 100 km would be ~6,500 ft in 62 miles so I would agree with 100+ ft of climbing per mile as being a hilly ride.

I like the challenge of the hills, the views from the summits, and the speed of the descents but I would also like to be able to do more flat rides without having to travel far to get to them. If I lived somewhere near (say) Preston, Wetherby or Macclesfield, I would have hills in one direction and flatlands in the opposite direction. That would probably be ideal for me.

 

[nickyboy]

It also depends on the area of where you live.

Some people like @nickyboy have no choice but to do rides based on elevation rather then distance. Others in the east of the country have very little on the way of climbing. Luckily in the SE we have a nice mix of the two.

Where are you based @amandasmile ?

How true...I keep inviting folk for a "nice ride around these parts" but strangely enough I'm not getting any takers

I will plan a route based on ft/mile of climbing depending on how hard I want to make it. A long ride out to Cheshire and back may be as low as 40ft/mile, an intentionally tough loop here would be 120ft/mile (that's the equivalent of climbing 4.5% and descending the same the whole ride, no flat at all). Standard is 100ft/mile. As a result I find it difficult to do more than 60 miles (and thus 6,000ft of climbing) per ride

I think the longest ride I've ever done in the Peak District is about 80 miles and that all but killed me

 

[presta]

I have given this much thought. I've pored over spreadsheets. I've tried formulae. My conclusion is: I don't know.

When walking there's some kind of formula that they use. I decided that there was no forumula that fitted my data.

Excel will do regression for you if you download the analysis tool pack:

First click: File>Add-ins>Options>Manage Excel Add-ins>Analysis Tool pack>OK
then click: Data>Data Analysis>Regression>OK

 

[ColinJ]

I think the longest ride I've ever done in the Peak District is about 80 miles and that all but killed me

I have ridden 140 miles in a day across West Yorkshire, right down the length of the Peak District and then onwards to Coventry. You are probably as fit as I was then or fitter than I was so if 80 Peak District miles is killing you then I think that maybe you are not pacing yourself well, or you are over-geared? (Or you don't eat and/or drink enough.) I only averaged about 11.5 mph on that ride (including stops) and my bottom gear was 26/28.

 

[FishFright]

Does nobody go out for a period of time? "I'm away out for a a couple of hours"...

Me. I used to care about time,distance, altitude gain etc but then I realised what I actually like to do is go out for a ride for a few hours and having a nice time .

Say no to suffering, unless you're racing of course.

 

[nickyboy]

I have ridden 140 miles in a day across West Yorkshire, right down the length of the Peak District and then onwards to Coventry. You are probably as fit as I was then or fitter than I was so if 80 Peak District miles is killing you then I think that maybe you are not pacing yourself well, or you are over-geared? (Or you don't eat and/or drink enough.) I only averaged about 11.5 mph on that ride (including stops) and my bottom gear was 26/28.

It included 9,000ft of climbing. And I guess that's the point. I could probably manage 140 miles with 9,000ft of climbing. But doing it in 80 miles was a real killer

 

[ColinJ]

It included 9,000ft of climbing. And I guess that's the point. I could probably manage 140 miles with 9,000ft of climbing. But doing it in 80 miles was a real killer

That is pretty hilly but I still think you could cope with that ok if you slowed down a bit.

Our local Season of Mists audax is 104 km with 2,550 metres of climbing (65 miles, 8,400 ft) and I get round that ok but I take about 7 hours these days. I did it in 6 hours in the past. I suspect that you would do it sub-6 hours and wonder why you were knackered!

 

[400bhp]

Climbing only interested me personally as a means to get a more immediate harder workout. But, in a circuit every foot climbed is a foot downhill where the workout isn't as intense. Looking at my former stats, say a 50 miles ride,whether its a flat ride, a hilly one, a windy day or a still one...the averages almost always worked out pretty much the same.

Something doesn’t stack up here for two main reasons. 1. Time spent going uphill is much greater than time spent going down do would expect average speed to be lower on a loop. And 2. Effort is broadly exponential so holding a particular average speed on a hilly loop requires more effort than a constant effort on a flat loop.

 

[gbb]

Something doesn’t stack up here for two main reasons. 1. Time spent going uphill is much greater than time spent going down do would expect average speed to be lower on a loop. And 2. Effort is broadly exponential so holding a particular average speed on a hilly loop requires more effort than a constant effort on a flat loop.

|I can only say as i find. I used to be a bit anal about my stats, i could do say a standard 50 mile ride and whatever the conditions or route, my times never varied that much. Bear in mind there are hills and hills. Mine tended to be rolling inclines (Northants) with occasional maybe 1 mile uphill at the most, many not that far. Over those 50 miles i seem to remember there'd be around 1000 ft of climbing, perhaps not much really.

If i went to Wales or similar, i'm sure you'd be right...proper hills, like wot we aint got here

 

[roadrash]

Does nobody go out for a period of time? "I'm away out for a a couple of hours"...

I usually don't make plans for a specific ride I just say right I'm off out for an hour, couple of hours, or whatever, I normally have no idea where I'm going to go either

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Yes I pop out for a period. I tend to choose time, quiet lanes, and variety. So I just vary the loops based on how long I intend to be out, what I rode last time, the time of day, and what I fancy. For instance if I am going to be out during sunrise or sunset I might choose a ride that will have a good view of the rising / setting Sun.

 

[ColinJ]

|I can only say as i find. I used to be a bit anal about my stats, i could do say a standard 50 mile ride and whatever the conditions or route, my times never varied that much. Bear in mind there are hills and hills. Mine tended to be rolling inclines (Northants) with occasional maybe 1 mile uphill at the most, many not that far. Over those 50 miles i seem to remember there'd be around 1000 ft of climbing, perhaps not much really.

So what you are saying is that you didn't notice much difference in average speed between routes with no hills and other routes with barely any hills ...

I think round here I could average about 30 kph on the flat for about the same effort as it takes me to do 20 kph over the hills

 

[classic33]

If it's elevation only, howabout one of these

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5FSWkjFPxs

 

[Moodyman]

Big steep hills are fine - you just sit back, gear down and accept it's gonna hurt for a bit, long flat roads are nice as you can cruise along. I find undulating terrain the worst. You never get into a rhythm due to the constantly changing terrain.

 

[Aravis]

Long hills, steep hills, flat roads, undulating roads - they're all good. Unless we're targeting stupidly steep hills (and I don't do that) we all know we can cope physically with the roads we ride on, but any road can feel tough if the head isn't right.

The thing about the big hills is that they usually cross a significant geographical feature, typically from one river valley to another. So whether its Killhope Cross or the Stelvio, you understand why the road's doing what it's doing. Mentally, the toughest road I can remember tackling (it was a long time ago) was the A68 heading north from Hadrian's Wall, where I had no absolutely no idea what was coming next. But I doubt whether on paper it would have looked especially intimidating.

So, in my experience, understand the landscape and you're almost there. On undulating roads that's not always so easy.

I might target a significant hill as a feature on a ride, but given the choice I'm more likely to navigate away from hills elsewhere. That would imply an elevation profile which is brontosaurus-shaped. Having dabbled a bit with creating artistic ride outlines this year, that gives me an idea...

But, inspired by this thread, I've noticed that with a little effort I could just about reach the 1000m in 100km threshold - sort of. So a change of emphasis could be on the cards. Thanks for that, OP.